Search for: All records

Doctoral education in chemistry (DEC) in the United States is charged with producing scientists who are capable of addressing the world’s Grand Challenges, enhancing quality of life and innovation both domestically and globally through advanced science. However, many believe these doctoral programs are failing to adequately and equitably prepare students for those responsibilities. While numerous challenges have been identified, many are based in perspective and opinion rather than inferred from theory-driven education research. This is problematic as it does not give evidence-based insight into the challenges facing DEC. This qualitative research study aims to address this issue by answering the research question: What are the issues and challenges within doctoral education in chemistry from the faculty perspective? This will be accomplished by interviewing faculty members of chemistry PhD programs and analyzing these interviews to characterize the challenges undermining DEC in the United States. Our findings indicate that there are four main themes characterizing these challenges: 1) universities and faculty struggle to findbalancebetween multiple responsibilities; 2) there are no standard or robustassessmentsto assess student outcomes; 3) theimplementationof many programmatic elements is ineffectual; and 4) inadequacies and inconsistencies withmentorshipare deeply problematic. Research implications for these findings are significant as they give insight into the underlying, systemic challenges that face DEC, rather than simply identifying symptomatic, surface-level issues. This lays the foundation for future research addressing challenges facing DEC. Our results are presented to equip those looking to reform doctoral education with essential insights needed to understand and begin addressing the aforementioned areas of concern. 

This qualitative study investigates the goals and outcomes of the individual programmatic elements within US chemistry doctoral programs, based on faculty perspectives. Forty-six faculty participants were interviewed using an interview protocol that was refined through iterative input and consensus building. Faculty perspectives in this study identifies several programmatic elements—such as research, coursework, lab rotations, candidacy process, and teaching assistantship—and explores the goals and outcomes of each. While the program's structure aims to incorporate essential workforce skills as explicit goals and outcomes, findings indicate that this integration often remains questionable. Further analysis of the goals and outcomes yielded three main insights: there is a misalignment between stated goals and enacted practices, necessitating a holistic reform approach to align goals of programmatic elements with students’ career goals and program goals; the structure of some programmatic elements often causes stress and frustration, highlighting the importance of improved integration and support; significant issues with certainty of the goals and outcomes of programmatic elements were identified, suggesting systemic problems that could lead to ineffective education. Addressing these issues through enhanced clarity, alignment, and practical training is vital for improving the experience of doctoral education in chemistry and better preparing students for their careers. While this study focused on US chemistry doctoral programs, the findings offer a framework for improving doctoral programs by addressing misalignments, unclear goals and outcomes, and the integration of real-world skills, providing insights that are applicable across diverse global educational contexts.